Final Safety Culture Policy Statement, 34773-34778 [2011-14656]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34773-34778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14656]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2010-0282]


Final Safety Culture Policy Statement

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Issuance of final safety culture policy statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) 
is issuing this Statement of Policy to set forth its expectation that 
individuals and organizations performing or overseeing regulated 
activities establish and maintain a positive safety culture 
commensurate with the safety and security significance of their 
activities and the nature and complexity of their organizations and 
functions. The Commission defines Nuclear Safety Culture as the core 
values and behaviors resulting from a collective commitment by leaders 
and individuals to emphasize safety over competing goals to ensure 
protection of people and the environment. This policy statement applies 
to all licensees, certificate holders, permit holders, authorization 
holders, holders of quality assurance program approvals, vendors and 
suppliers of safety-related components, and applicants for a license, 
certificate, permit, authorization, or quality assurance program 
approval, subject to NRC authority.

DATES: This policy statement becomes effective upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly available documents related to this 
document using the following methods:
     NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine 
and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's 
PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC 
are

[[Page 34774]]

available online in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which 
provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If you do 
not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff at 1-
800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
     Federal rulemaking Web site: Public comments and 
supporting materials related to this document can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2010-0282. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-492-
3668; e-mail: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy P. Zimmerman, Director, Office of 
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-2741; e-mail: Roy.Zimmerman@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Previous Policy Statements and Events Involving Safety Culture

    The NRC has long recognized the importance of a safety-first focus 
in nuclear work environments for public health and safety. The 
Commission's emphasis on a safety-first focus is reflected in two 
previously published NRC policy statements. The 1989, ``Policy 
Statement on the Conduct of Nuclear Power Plant Operations'' (54 FR 
3424; January 24, 1989), applies to all individuals engaged in 
activities that affect the safety of nuclear power plants, and provides 
the Commission's expectations of utility management and licensed 
operators with respect to the conduct of operations. The 1996, 
``Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns 
Without Fear of Retaliation'' (61 FR 24336; May 14, 1996), applies to 
the regulated activities of all NRC licensees and their contractors and 
subcontractors, and provides the Commission's expectations that 
licensees and other employers subject to NRC authority establish and 
maintain safety-conscious work environments in which employees feel 
free to raise safety concerns, both to their management and to the NRC, 
without fear of retaliation. This Safety Culture Statement of Policy, 
in conjunction with the previous policy statements, is intended to 
emphasize the importance the NRC places on the development and 
maintenance of a positive safety culture for all regulated activities.
    The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986, brought 
attention to the importance of safety culture and the impact that 
weaknesses in safety culture can have on safety performance. Since 
then, the importance of a positive safety culture has been demonstrated 
by a number of significant, high-visibility events worldwide. In the 
United States, incidents involving the civilian uses of radioactive 
materials have not been confined to a particular type of licensee or 
certificate holder, as they have occurred at nuclear power plants and 
fuel cycle facilities and during medical and industrial activities 
involving regulated materials. Assessments of these incidents revealed 
that weaknesses in the regulated entities' safety cultures were an 
underlying cause of the incidents or increased the severity of the 
incidents. The causes of these incidents included, for example, 
inadequate management oversight of process changes, perceived 
production pressures, lack of a questioning attitude, and poor 
communications. One such incident indicated the need for additional NRC 
efforts to evaluate whether the agency should increase its attention to 
reactor licensees' safety cultures. This resulted in important changes 
to the NRC's Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). Commission paper SECY-06-
0122, dated May 24, 2006, (ADAMS Accession No. ML061320282) describes 
the NRC's safety culture activities at that time and the outcomes of 
those activities.
    Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the 
Commission issued orders enhancing security at facilities whose 
operations, if attacked, could have an impact on public health and 
safety. During the early years of implementation of these security 
enhancements, several violations of the Commission's security 
requirements were identified in which the licensee's failure to 
cultivate a positive safety culture impacted the effectiveness of the 
licensee's security program. The most visible of these involved 
security officers sleeping in a ``ready room'' while on shift at a 
nuclear power plant. Most of the weaknesses involved inadequate 
management oversight of security, lack of a questioning attitude within 
the security organization, complacency, barriers to raising concerns 
about security issues, and inadequate training of security personnel.

B. Commission Direction

    In February 2008, the Commission issued Staff Requirements 
Memorandum (SRM), SRM-COMGBJ-08-0001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080560476), 
directing the NRC staff to expand the Commission's policy on safety 
culture to address the unique aspects of security and to ensure the 
resulting policy is applicable to all licensees and certificate 
holders. The Commission directed the staff to answer several additional 
questions, including: (1) Whether safety culture as applied to reactors 
needed to be strengthened; (2) how to increase attention to safety 
culture in the materials area; (3) how stakeholder involvement can most 
effectively be used to address safety culture for all NRC and Agreement 
State licensees and certificate holders, including any unique aspects 
of security; and (4) whether publishing the NRC's expectations for 
safety culture and for security culture would be best accomplished in 
one safety/security culture statement or in two separate statements 
while still considering the safety and security interfaces.
    In response to Commission direction, the NRC staff reviewed 
domestic and international safety-culture-related documents and 
considered NRC lessons learned. Additionally, the staff sought insights 
and feedback from external stakeholders. This was accomplished by 
providing information in a variety of forums, such as stakeholder 
organization meetings, newsletters, and teleconferences, and by 
publishing questions developed to address Commission direction in the 
February 9, 2009, Federal Register notice (FRN) (74 FR 6433) entitled 
``Safety Culture Policy Statement Development: Public Meeting and 
Request for Public Comments'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML090260709).
    In February 2009, the NRC held a public workshop on the 
``Development of a Policy Statement on Safety Culture and Security 
Culture'' in which a broad range of stakeholders participated, 
including representatives from the Agreement States (Meeting Summary: 
ADAMS Accession No. ML090930572). The staff developed draft 
characteristics (subsequently referred to as ``traits'') of a positive 
safety culture and presented them at the workshop. Mindful of the 
increased attention to the important role of security, the staff also 
sought input from the workshop participants on whether there should be 
a single safety culture policy statement or two policy statements 
addressing safety and security independently while considering the 
interface of both. Before providing its recommendations to the 
Commission, the staff developed a draft definition of safety culture in 
which it modified a definition from the International Atomic Energy 
Agency's

[[Page 34775]]

advisory group, the International Nuclear Safety Group, to make it 
applicable to all NRC-regulated activities and to address security.
    Based on its review and stakeholder feedback, in SECY-09-0075, 
``Safety Culture Policy Statement,'' dated May 16, 2009 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML091130068), the NRC staff provided a single draft 
safety culture policy statement for Commission approval. The draft 
policy statement acknowledged the importance of safety and security, 
and the interface of both, within an overarching culture of safety. 
Additionally, in response to the Commission's questions, the staff: (1) 
Concluded that the NRC's oversight of safety culture as applied to 
reactors has been strengthened, is effective, and continues to be 
refined in accordance with the existing ROP self-assessment process; 
(2) described actions taken and planned for increasing attention to 
safety culture in the materials area; and (3) described actions taken 
and planned for most effectively obtaining stakeholder involvement to 
address safety culture, including any unique aspects of security, for 
all NRC and Agreement State licensees and certificate holders.
    In SRM-SECY-09-0075 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092920099), the 
Commission directed the staff to: (1) Publish the draft safety culture 
policy statement for no fewer than 90 days; (2) continue to engage a 
broad range of stakeholders, including the Agreement States and other 
organizations with an interest in nuclear safety, to ensure the final 
policy statement presented to the Commission reflects a broad spectrum 
of views and provides the necessary foundation for safety culture 
applicable to the entire nuclear industry; (3) make the necessary 
adjustments to encompass security within the statement; (4) seek 
opportunities to comport NRC terminology, where possible, with that of 
existing standards and references maintained by those that the NRC 
regulates; and (5) consider incorporating suppliers and vendors of 
safety-related components in the safety culture policy statement.

C. Development of the Final Policy Statement

    On February 2-4, 2010, the NRC held a second safety culture 
workshop to provide a venue for interested parties to comment on the 
draft safety culture policy statement. The additional goal of the 
workshop was for panelists representing a broad range of stakeholders 
to reach alignment, using common terminology, on a definition of safety 
culture and a high-level set of traits that describe areas important to 
a positive safety culture. The workshop panelists represented a wide 
range of stakeholders regulated by the NRC and/or the Agreement States, 
including medical, industrial, and fuel cycle materials users, and 
nuclear power reactor licensees, as well as the Nuclear Energy 
Institute, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), and 
members of the public. The workshop panelists reached alignment with 
input from the other meeting attendees on a definition of safety 
culture and a high-level set of traits describing areas important to a 
positive safety culture.
    Following the February 2010, workshop, the NRC staff evaluated the 
public comments that were submitted in response to the November 6, 
2009, FRN (74 FR 57525). Additionally, the staff participated on panels 
and made presentations at various industry forums in order to provide 
information to stakeholders about the development of the safety culture 
policy statement and/or to obtain additional input and to ascertain 
whether the definition and traits developed at the workshop accurately 
reflect a broad range of stakeholders' views. These outreach activities 
included, for example, participation in a Special Joint Session on 
Safety Culture at the Health Physics Society Annual Meeting, and 
presentations on the development of the safety culture policy statement 
at the Annual Fuel Cycle Information Exchange, the Conference of 
Radiation Control Program Directors' Annual National Conference on 
Radiation Control, the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management's 
Annual Meeting, the Second NRC Workshop on Vendor Oversight for New 
Reactors, and the Organization of Agreement States Annual Meeting. In 
response to Commission direction in SRM-SECY-09-00075, the staff 
focused attention on attending meetings involving the Organization of 
Agreement States and other materials licensees.
    In July 2010, the NRC held a public teleconference with the 
panelists who participated in the February 2010, workshop to discuss 
the status of outreach activities associated with the development of 
the policy statement. At the July 2010, meeting, the panelists 
reiterated their support for the definition and traits developed at the 
February 2010, workshop as a result of their outreach with their 
industry colleagues. This position aligns with the comments the staff 
received during the various outreach activities. In September 2010, the 
staff held an additional teleconference to provide information on the 
initial results of a validation study conducted by INPO, which was 
conducted, in part, to see whether and to what extent the factors that 
came out of INPO's safety culture survey support the February 2010, 
workshop traits. The factors support the traits developed at the 
workshop.
    Based on its review and stakeholder feedback, the staff published 
the revised draft safety culture policy statement (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML102500563) on September 17, 2010 (75 FR 57081), for a 30-day public 
comment period. Because public comments reflected some misunderstanding 
regarding the Commission's use of a policy statement rather than a 
regulation or rule, the September 2010, FRN provided clarification, 
pointing out that the Commission may use a policy statement to address 
matters relating to activities that are within NRC jurisdiction and are 
of particular interest and importance to the Commission. Policy 
statements help to guide the activities of the NRC staff and can 
express the Commission's expectations of others; however, they are not 
regulations or rules and are not accorded the status of a regulation or 
rule within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act. The 
Agreement States, which are responsible for overseeing their materials 
licensees, cannot be required to implement the elements of a policy 
statement because such statements, unlike NRC regulations, are not a 
matter of compatibility. Additionally, policy statements cannot be 
considered binding upon, or enforceable against, NRC or Agreement State 
licensees and certificate holders.
    This Statement of Policy has been developed to engage individuals 
and organizations performing regulated activities involving nuclear 
materials and share the Commission's expectations regarding the 
development and maintenance of a positive safety culture.
    The NRC held a public meeting in September 2010, in the Las Vegas 
Hearing Facility, Las Vegas, Nevada, which was simultaneously broadcast 
in the Commission Hearing Room, Rockville, Maryland, and over the 
internet via Web streaming in order to allow remote participation. The 
goals of the September 2010, FRN and meeting were to provide additional 
opportunities for stakeholders to comment on the revised draft policy 
statement, including the definition and traits developed at the 
February 2010, workshop, and to discuss the information gathered from 
the outreach activities that had occurred since the February 2010, 
workshop. Additionally, a representative from INPO presented

[[Page 34776]]

information on the validation study INPO conducted as part of INPO's 
efforts to help establish a technical basis for the identification and 
definition of areas important to safety culture. A member of the Office 
of Nuclear Regulatory Research also presented findings related to the 
oversight of the INPO study.

II. Public Comments

    The November 2009, FRN and the September 2010, FRN generated 76 
comments from affected stakeholders and members of the public. The 
staff's evaluation concluded that many of the comments were statements 
of agreement on the information included in the draft and revised 
safety culture policy statements and did not require further action. A 
few of the commenters raised issues that the staff considered during 
the development of the policy statement, but ultimately concluded that 
the issues were either not applicable to the policy statement, for 
example, that ``by virtue of its all encompassing applicability, the 
policy must be taken as a strategic utterance;'' or either 
misunderstood or disregarded the concept of a policy statement in this 
application, for example, that a policy statement is ``largely 
inadequate for purposes of establishing broad-reaching performance 
standards.'' The remaining comments informed the NRC staff's 
development of the final policy statement. These were grouped into the 
following themes:
    1. The NRC should adopt the definition and traits developed during 
the February 2010, workshop. This theme encompassed additional comments 
indicating that retaining the term ``security'' in the definition and 
traits of a positive safety culture may be confusing to many licensees, 
particularly materials licensees.
    2. The traits from the February 2010, workshop should be included 
in the Statement of Policy in order to provide additional clarity as to 
its intent.
    3. More guidance is needed on the NRC's expectations as to how the 
policy statement will be implemented. This encompassed the additional 
theme that stakeholders would like to be actively involved in the 
process of developing this guidance and that the continued use of 
workshops with the various licensees would be helpful.
    4. A discussion should be included in the policy statement that 
addresses the diversity of the regulated community. Additionally, the 
Commission should acknowledge the efforts already underway as the 
regulated community addresses the Statement of Policy.
    5. How does the NRC plan to ``enforce'' adherence to the policy 
statement?
    6. Comments on the draft policy statement were generally supportive 
of including vendors and suppliers of safety-related components in the 
Statement of Policy, but reflected concern about jurisdictional issues, 
as well as the impact that including vendors and suppliers in the 
Statement of Policy might have on licensees' ability to work with these 
entities.
    7. During its evaluation of the public comments on the draft safety 
culture policy statement, the staff felt that a trait addressing 
complacency should be added to the February 2010, workshop traits. 
Several months later, the results of an INPO study indicated that the 
trait ``Questioning Attitude'' had strong support with operating 
nuclear plant personnel. This trait resonated with the staff as an 
approach for addressing complacency for all regulated activities. At 
the September 2010, public meeting, as part of a larger presentation 
providing the results of the INPO validation study, the staff added a 
question about whether to include this trait. Additionally, the 
September 2010, FRN specifically asked whether complacency should be 
addressed in the Statement of Policy. Although the responses to this 
question varied, the staff concluded it should be considered in a 
positive safety culture and included the concept of complacency in the 
Statement of Policy under the trait, ``Questioning Attitude.'' 
``Questioning Attitude'' is described in the final Statement of Policy 
as a culture ``in which individuals avoid complacency and continuously 
challenge existing conditions and activities in order to identify 
discrepancies that might result in error or inappropriate action.''
    This policy statement is being issued after careful consideration 
of the staff's evaluation of the public comments received on the 
November 2009, and September 2010, FRNs; the public meetings held in 
February 2009, and February, July, and September 2010; the views 
expressed by stakeholders during the Commission briefing in March 2010; 
and the informal dialogue with the various stakeholders during the 
staff's additional outreach efforts from the February 2010, workshop 
until the second public comment period ended on October 18, 2010.
    The following paragraphs provide the specific information that was 
used in the development of the final policy statement, including the 
changes that were made to the November 2009, FRN:
    1. The Statement of Policy adopts the February 2010, workshop 
definition and traits of a positive safety culture. The term 
``security'' is not included in either the definition or the traits. 
The Commission agrees that an overarching safety culture addresses both 
safety and security and does not need to single out ``security'' in the 
definition. However, to ensure that security is appropriately 
encompassed within the Statement of Policy, a preamble to the traits 
has been added and the robust discussion of security, including the 
importance of considering the interface of safety and security that was 
included in the draft Statement of Policy, has been retained in the 
Statement of Policy.
    2. The Commission agrees that including the traits in the Statement 
of Policy will serve to clarify the intent of the policy. The draft 
policy statement published in the November 2009, FRN did not include 
the characteristics (now described as ``traits') in the actual 
Statement of Policy. The staff developed the draft characteristics 
based on a variety of sources, including the 13 safety culture 
components used in the ROP. The characteristics included significantly 
more detail than the traits included in the Statement of Policy. The 
staff's basis for the original decision to include the characteristics 
in another section of the draft policy statement but not in the actual 
draft Statement of Policy was three-fold: first, it would keep the 
Statement of Policy brief and concise; second, it would maintain the 
Statement of Policy at a high level; and third, it would not invalidate 
the characteristics' standing as part of the draft policy statement to 
place them in another section of the draft policy statement. The 
November 6, 2009, FRN that contained the draft policy statement 
specifically requested comments on whether the characteristics should 
be included in the Statement of Policy. Some commenters indicated that 
they would prefer not to include the traits in the actual Statement of 
Policy or that they agree with the original decision to include the 
traits in their own section of the policy statement. However, several 
commenters indicated that adding the traits to the Statement of Policy 
itself would help to clarify the Commission's expectations. Because the 
traits in question were developed by the stakeholders at the February 
2010, workshop to provide a high-level description of the areas 
important to a positive safety culture, the level of detail that was 
included in the draft characteristics is not present in the traits. 
Thus, even with inclusion of the traits, the Statement of Policy 
remains brief and concise; in addition, this approach provides high-
level detail that

[[Page 34777]]

was not in the draft Statement of Policy. Including the traits in the 
Statement of Policy rather than as part of the policy statement 
visually supports their standing as part of the Commission's 
expectation that these are areas that members of the regulated 
community should consider as they develop a positive safety culture. 
Finally, as the Statement of Policy points out, the list of traits was 
not developed for inspection purposes nor does it represent an all-
inclusive list of areas important to a positive safety culture.
    3. Implementation is not directly addressed in this policy 
statement, which sets forth the overarching principles of a positive 
safety culture. This discussion is not included because the Commission 
is aware of the diversity of its regulated community (which includes, 
for example, industrial radiography services; hospitals, clinics and 
individual practitioners involved in medical uses of radioactive 
materials; research and test reactors; large-scale fuel fabrication 
facilities; as well as operating nuclear power plants and the 
construction of new facilities where operations will involve 
radioactive materials with the potential to affect public health and 
safety and the common defense and security) and recognizes that 
implementation will be more complex in some settings than others. The 
NRC program offices responsible for licensing and oversight of the 
affected entities intend to work with their constituents, who bear the 
primary responsibility for safely handling and securing regulated 
materials, to address the next steps and specific implementation 
issues. Nevertheless, before implementation issues are addressed, the 
regulated community can begin assessing their activities to identify 
areas for enhancement. For example, industry representatives could 
begin to identify tacit organizational and personal goals that, at 
times, may compete with a safety-first focus and develop strategies for 
adjusting those goals. Some monetary incentive or other rewards 
programs could work against making a safe decision. Current training 
programs may not address safety culture and its traits or how those 
traits apply to day-to-day work activities. Identification of both 
strengths and weaknesses related to safety culture in the regulated 
community will be helpful in understanding implementation strategies.
    4. The final Statement of Policy includes a statement that the 
Commission recognizes the diversity of the various organizations that 
are included in the Statement of Policy and the fact that some 
organizations have already spent significant time and resources in the 
development of programs and policies to support a positive safety 
culture. The Commission will take these efforts into consideration as 
the regulated community addresses the Statement of Policy.
    5. Because there seemed to be some questions about the Commission's 
use of a policy statement rather than a regulation, the staff provided 
a brief discussion of the differences in the September 17, 2010, FRN, 
pointing out that policy statements, while not enforceable, guide the 
activities of the NRC staff and express the Commission's expectations. 
The Commission reiterates the conclusion of the discussion provided in 
the September 2010, FRN that while the option to consider rulemaking 
exists, the Commission believes at this time, that developing a policy 
statement is a more effective way to engage stakeholders.
    6. Vendors and suppliers of safety-related components have been 
included in this Statement of Policy. A few stakeholders have raised 
concerns about how implementation would be carried out, particularly in 
cases where vendors and suppliers are located outside of NRC 
jurisdiction. However, the Commission believes that vendors and 
suppliers of safety-related components should develop and maintain a 
positive safety culture in their organizations for the same reasons 
that other NRC-regulated entities should do so.
    7. The final Statement of Policy adds the trait ``Questioning 
Attitude'' to the traits developed at the February 2010, workshop as an 
appropriate vehicle for addressing complacency.

III. Statement of Policy

    The purpose of this Statement of Policy is to set forth the 
Commission's expectation that individuals and organizations establish 
and maintain a positive safety culture commensurate with the safety and 
security significance of their activities and the nature and complexity 
of their organizations and functions. This includes all licensees, 
certificate holders, permit holders, authorization holders, holders of 
quality assurance program approvals, vendors and suppliers of safety-
related components, and applicants for a license, certificate, permit, 
authorization, or quality assurance program approval, subject to NRC 
authority. The Commission encourages the Agreement States, Agreement 
State licensees and other organizations interested in nuclear safety to 
support the development and maintenance of a positive safety culture, 
as articulated in this Statement of Policy.
    Nuclear Safety Culture is defined as the core values and behaviors 
resulting from a collective commitment by leaders and individuals to 
emphasize safety over competing goals to ensure protection of people 
and the environment. Individuals and organizations performing regulated 
activities bear the primary responsibility for safety and security. The 
performance of individuals and organizations can be monitored and 
trended and, therefore, may be used to determine compliance with 
requirements and commitments and may serve as an indicator of possible 
problem areas in an organization's safety culture. The NRC will not 
monitor or trend values. These will be the organization's 
responsibility as part of its safety culture program.
    Organizations should ensure that personnel in the safety and 
security sectors have an appreciation for the importance of each, 
emphasizing the need for integration and balance to achieve both safety 
and security in their activities. Safety and security activities are 
closely intertwined. While many safety and security activities 
complement each other, there may be instances in which safety and 
security interests create competing goals. It is important that 
consideration of these activities be integrated so as not to diminish 
or adversely affect either; thus, mechanisms should be established to 
identify and resolve these differences. A safety culture that 
accomplishes this would include all nuclear safety and security issues 
associated with NRC-regulated activities.
    Experience has shown that certain personal and organizational 
traits are present in a positive safety culture. A trait, in this case, 
is a pattern of thinking, feeling, and behaving that emphasizes safety, 
particularly in goal conflict situations, e.g., production, schedule, 
and the cost of the effort versus safety. It should be noted that 
although the term ``security'' is not expressly included in the 
following traits, safety and security are the primary pillars of the 
NRC's regulatory mission. Consequently, consideration of both safety 
and security issues, commensurate with their significance, is an 
underlying principle of this Statement of Policy.
    The following are traits of a positive safety culture:
    (1) Leadership Safety Values and Actions--Leaders demonstrate a 
commitment to safety in their decisions and behaviors;
    (2) Problem Identification and Resolution--Issues potentially

[[Page 34778]]

impacting safety are promptly identified, fully evaluated, and promptly 
addressed and corrected commensurate with their significance;
    (3) Personal Accountability--All individuals take personal 
responsibility for safety;
    (4) Work Processes--The process of planning and controlling work 
activities is implemented so that safety is maintained;
    (5) Continuous Learning--Opportunities to learn about ways to 
ensure safety are sought out and implemented;
    (6) Environment for Raising Concerns--A safety conscious work 
environment is maintained where personnel feel free to raise safety 
concerns without fear of retaliation, intimidation, harassment, or 
discrimination;
    (7) Effective Safety Communication--Communications maintain a focus 
on safety;
    (8) Respectful Work Environment--Trust and respect permeate the 
organization; and
    (9) Questioning Attitude--Individuals avoid complacency and 
continuously challenge existing conditions and activities in order to 
identify discrepancies that might result in error or inappropriate 
action.
    There may be traits not included in this Statement of Policy that 
are also important in a positive safety culture. It should be noted 
that these traits were not developed to be used for inspection 
purposes.
    It is the Commission's expectation that all individuals and 
organizations, performing or overseeing regulated activities involving 
nuclear materials, should take the necessary steps to promote a 
positive safety culture by fostering these traits as they apply to 
their organizational environments. The Commission recognizes the 
diversity of these organizations and acknowledges that some 
organizations have already spent significant time and resources in the 
development of a positive safety culture. The Commission will take this 
into consideration as the regulated community addresses the Statement 
of Policy.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of June 2011.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-14656 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P